Director, Sense About Science USA, which advocates for an evidence based approach to science and technology and for clinical trial transparency. Editor, STATS.org, a collaboration between the American Statistical Association and Sense About Science USA. Visiting Fellow, Cornell University. I have written about data and statistics and how they are interpreted in our so-called "knowledge economy," especially in relation to risk and regulation. I've written for the New Yorker online, Harvard Business Review, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. I speak regularly about the media's coverage of science and statistics and scientific communication. Educated at Trinity College Dublin, Georgetown, and Columbia.

Why You Should Trust The FDA (And Not Dr. Oz)

If the reaction in the news media to Dr. Oz’s absurd claims about the dangers of arsenic in apple juice has been enormously heartening (essentially the media’s collective “Dr. Oz says this, but the FDA says that” narrative leaves the celebrity cardiothoracic surgeon looking like an unscrupulous and unethical quack), the disheartening part is that too many people will still choose to believe a television doctor who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow in terms of chemistry, over the massed ranks of PhD’s and toxicologists at the Food and Drug Administration.

This abysmal state of affairs was summed up by some fool on The View mouthing off about how we all should be grateful that Dr. Oz is looking out for our kids – as if the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on a vast array of regulatory agencies simply didn’t occur.

As I listened to presentation after presentation from scientists who spend their working days trying to protect the public from contamination in food, I was struck by the fact that the real story about what the FDA does is almost impossible to convey to the public. Certainly, in all the years I’ve been reporting on risk, I have never seen any story in the mainstream media that articulates the complexity of the science. And if you don’t grasp that complexity, you just cannot understand how serious and scrupulous these scientists are when it comes to trying to protect the public.

This is why Dr. Oz, in refusing to acknowledge the simple, objective errors the FDA pointed out in the way his show measured arsenic, betrayed science. And when you betray science, it doesn’t matter how much you protest that you are only looking to protect America’s children. No one is protected by getting the science wrong.

But how do you communicate that betrayal to a public which simply doesn’t understand chemistry (and probably shudders at the mere mention of the subject thanks to high school), doesn’t think scientifically (i.e., mentally tests propositions for the ways in which they might be falsifiable), but reacts on a deep emotional level to the idea that the kids are in mortal danger?

What was notable – and praiseworthy – about the FDA’s response was that it added a much more personalized message to it’s straightforward scientific criticism of Dr. Oz’s claims. Donald Zink, Ph.D, senior science advisor at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), said what often goes unsaid in these media controversies. “As a parent and grandparent myself, I understand the concern over recent reports that arsenic has been found in apple juice,” he said, before adding that years of testing at the FDA – and, more importantly, the way the FDA did its tests, left him without any cause for concern.

Now think about it: Dr. Zink is a microbiologist and biochemist specializing in food; how much microbiology and biochemistry do you really think Dr. Oz, a heart surgeon, knows?

More to the point, do you really think that the hundreds of parents at the FDA with academic qualifications every bit as impressive as Dr. Oz’s are somehow less reliable and less concerned about food safety than someone who has chosen to practice medicine on a daily television show? And finally, what is the likelihood that, in our age of massive food regulation, it just didn’t cross anyone’s mind to examine – and keep examining – apple juice?

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer warned that drama was as fundamental to journalism as it was to theater – and that journalists were like lap dogs, barking hysterically at everything that moved. It’s time to see Dr. Oz as having crossed the canine rubicon – and having abandoned science for a barking role in the theater of the absurd.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Dr. Oz claims that he is concerned about the long-term effects of arsenic in apple juice. I find this very strange since I believe he promotes all kinds of untested “dietary supplements” and “natural remedies” but I’ve never heard him worry about their long-term health effects.

Bingo! Of course, given that he gives credence to homeopathy, I suppose he’s logically bound to worry about the dangers of a single molecule of arsenic. Both lousy science and hypocrisy given that “natural remedies” lack the kind of regulatory oversight applied to food.

What we really need is protection from the over-reach of the FDA: From the lawsuit against the fda, it’s rebuttal briefs state clearly what their intent is. You can read it all here: http://farmtoconsumer.org/litigation-FDA-status.htm

here is a snippet: FDA’s Views on Freedom of Choice

Here are some of FDA’s views expressed in its response on ‘freedom of food choice’ in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” [p. 4]

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” [p.17]

“There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.” [p. 25]

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p. 26]

FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health.” [p. 27]

How, exactly, is this related to the story? While I don’t necessarily disagree that the FDA may be overstepping with the raw milk issue (if the producers are not selling across state lines), the issue here was that Dr. Oz was fear mongering to get ratings based on bad science. The FDA does far more good than harm, protects more than it hinders. Like every large gov’t bureaucracy it has to be reminded of its boundaries periodically, but overall it is a good agency.

If you drink unpasteurized milk, you run a great risk of getting sick and DYING…that’s why pasteurization was a great invention. I’m sick of the greenie weanies trying to beat out science by going back before science made our food and drink safe. They need to look back on all the people who died in the 19th century form eating andrinking pathogens in foodstuffs. Theses deaths were common occurances.

I agree with kyfarmer, RE: FDA’s Views on Freedom of Choice >>“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p. 26] << why should I trust any agency, FDA or other, that tells me what food I don't have a *right* to eat?

Here is one of the reasons I would disagree with you on this: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/44623239#44623239 FDA is slow moving highly bureaucratic machine that that don’t really give a much about public safety, if they really would third of the supermarkets shelf would be empty and 80% of the restaurants would be closed.

The question I have is why this arrogant rant toward Dr. Oz? He may or may not be wrong (I have not delved into this issue yet), but there are very good reasons to distrust the FDA. Their history of being a handmaiden for the pharmaceutical industry being one of them.

The administrative leadership of the FDA often ignores the advice of it’s own scientists. It is not just a bureaucracy, but a very corrupt one at that.

“The FDA tests also confirmed suspicions that the relatively harmless organic arsenic in the feed is being converted to carcinogenic inorganic arsenic in the animal’s body.”

So which is it??? Is organic arsenic harmless? Or can it be (as the FDA seems to admit) converted to inorganic arsenic and thus pose a problem?

If “Trevor Butterworth” wonders why the FDA’s word is not taken as gospel, perhaps he should take note of the history of the FDA’s lies, fraud, and disinformation. Their habit of ignoring their own expert medical panels:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/07/2/gr070213.html

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 6 overruled the recommendation of its own expert advisory panel and declined to approve over-the-counter (OTC) status for the postcoital contraceptive known as Plan B.”

Their hiding of dangerous drug side effects at the behest of their patrons in the pharmaceutical industry.

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/fda-complicit-in-drug-fatalities

As we know all too well, at the FDA, it’s politics and money first, and public safety a very distant second!

I will trust the FDA right after I trust the Mafia! Oops, sorry…..didn’t mean to slander “La Cosa Nostra!”

Trevor. That was a scolding article about Dr. Oz and the points he was making about apple juice and the LONG TERM affects of the different types of arsenic found in our apple and other fruit juices. I fail to understand the logic behind your seemingly emotional, angry article about this. It seems from an UNBIASED perspective, that you are over reacting and defending the beverage industry, or the FDA for some reason.

Please read the excerpt from this article THAT INDICATES THE FDA WAS FOUND TO HAVE WITHHELD PUBLICATION OF TEST RESULTS!

“Shortly after Oz’s segment aired, the FDA released the preliminary results of six years of apple juice screening under its Toxic Elements program, posting test results for seventy samples, all of which showed negligible amounts of total arsenic. Toward the end of November, however, the agency acknowledged that it had WITHHELD PUBLICATION of test results for eight other samples, which were part of the same data set and had concentrations higher than 23 ppb, reaching as high as 45 ppb. ”

As a concerned citizen with no side or stake in the fight, outside of my own children’s safety, I am puzzled at how you can write , and months later now still leave an article on the site with such misinformation? Has there been a follow up article that I am unaware of?

Or how about this article that concludes that 25% of the samples were a higher limit than what is found in our drinking water. If its not acceptable for our water, then why would the levels be acceptable for our juices? that makes no sense does it?

Can you please comment on this? I suddenly find myself NOT trusting the FDA or you for that matter. What would be the reason for such an angry reaction in your article if you were not either hiding something or working for a food lobby? Maybe I am drawing too much of a conclusion there, but I am more concerned now than i was before. It looks like Dr. Oz was right after all. Also of point is that if you listen to him, he said over and over again he was not trying to malign apple juice or the beverage industry.

We are not dumb cattle that cant read. I think you are a shill and it frankly pisses me off because your bad writing could lead other people to shy away from good information and keeping an open mind towards our food supplies.

Maybe your next article should cover the FDA and who these food scientists are. It seems like the FDA was only trying to cover its butt, not inform and protect the consumers. If they were, then why on earth did they hide the results. Its sneaky and I can only imagine how much money the food lobby is giving to some of these scientists to support their positions. Maybe do an article about that next time!

On September 13, 2011, the FDA sent a second letter to the Dr. Oz show stating, among other things that, “In short, the results of the tests cited above do not indicate that apple juice contains unsafe amounts of arsenic. The FDA reaffirms its belief, as stated in our September 9, 2011 letter, that it would be irresponsible and misleading for the Dr. Oz Show to suggest that apple juice is unsafe based on tests for total arsenic.”

Sincerely,

Don L. Zink, Ph.D. Senior Science Advisor U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition This was after the Dr. Oz show tested several samples of Nestle/Gerber’s juicy juice and found and reported, on his show, conciderably high levels of arsenic in Nestle’s apple juice.

Its important I believe to point out the before Dr. Zink went to work for the FDA from 1990 – 2002 Don L. Zink, Ph.D worked for Nestle ‘s subsidiary company Carnation in Quality Assurance for the he served as Director of Food Safety for Nestle USA.

Well isn’t that interesting. Same guy who said juice is safe, worked for the company who had juice that wasnt safe!